The TBA’s Corporate Counsel Section will hold a one-hour webcast on the impact of artificial intelligence (AI) on corporate governance. The program will air at 9 a.m. CDT on Oct. 25. Tune in to hear from Matt White, a shareholder with Baker Donelson and co-chair of the firm’s Financial Services Data Privacy and Cybersecurity Team, and Barbara Bennett with Frost Brown Todd, a nationally recognized health care, data privacy and AI governance attorney.

This webinar will explore how in-house legal teams can effectively balance the strategic advantages and inherent risks of integrating AI. It will cover:

• What AI is and its practical applications
• Key risks and considerations to address before implementing AI
• AI governance frameworks and compliance
• Ethical challenges and responsible AI use

Attendees will gain valuable insights on managing AI in the corporate environment while mitigating legal and ethical concerns. The course offers one hour of dual CLE credit. Learn more and register online.

A growing firm is a great thing. It's a sure sign that your hard work is paying off with happy clients and more opportunities. As your business expands, it's important to bring new people up to speed smoothly and efficiently. Use this list to make sure you cover everything without overwhelming the new hire. Find more resources in the Management Section of TBA’s Law Firm in a Box.

The TBA’s 2024 Health Law Primer and Health Law Forum take place next week. The primer will be held Oct. 16 in downtown Nashville. Designed for those new to health practice, it will provide a general health law overview and practical tips to identify and avoid the pitfalls of real-life situations in the heavily regulated health care industry. Then on Oct. 17 and 18, the forum will take place in Franklin’s Cool Springs area. The two-day event will dig deeper into topics such as private equity, antitrust laws, digital health, cyber security, legislative and state case updates and ethics. You don't want to miss the state's premier health law event!

THAPAR, Circuit Judge. Ohio passed a law to stop foreign money from influencing its elections. The law bans foreign nationals from spending money to support or defeat ballot initiatives. It also bans foreign nationals from contributing to candidates in state elections. After plaintiffs brought a First Amendment challenge, the district court found that Ohio’s law violates the rights of lawful permanent residents. The district court preliminarily enjoined Ohio from enforcing its new campaign finance law with respect to all foreign nationals. Ohio appealed the district court’s decision. It also asked us for an emergency stay of the district court’s order so that Ohio can enforce its law while we consider the merits of the appeal. Because our initial review suggests that the district court’s First Amendment analysis was flawed, we now grant Ohio’s motion for a stay of the district court’s order.

LARSEN, Circuit Judge. Jaylan Gore was charged with possessing a stolen firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(j), and with receiving a firearm while under felony indictment, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(n). Gore moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that § 922(j) and (n) violate the Second Amendment. The district court denied the motion, and Gore’s case went to trial. During voir dire, Gore raised a Batson challenge to the prosecutor’s peremptory strike of the last black juror on the panel. The district court rejected that challenge after finding that the prosecutor’s motivations were race neutral. The jury convicted on both counts, and the district court sentenced Gore to 18 months’ imprisonment. For the reasons that follow, we AFFIRM.

JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. Christopher Goins challenges the constitutionality of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) following the Supreme Court’s decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), as applied to himself. Section 922(g)(1) declares it unlawful for any person “who has been convicted in any court of . . . a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year” to ship, transport, possess, or receive firearms or ammunition via interstate or foreign commerce. 18 U.S.C § 922(g)(1). The law thus prohibits firearm ownership by felons, unless such individuals receive expungement, a pardon, or other post-conviction relief. See id. § 921(a)(20). Goins raises an as- applied challenge, arguing under Bruen that this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation does not support prohibiting felons like him from possessing firearms, and thus the Second Amendment renders § 922(g)(1) unconstitutional as applied to him. We consider this issue de novo and hold that § 922(g)(1) is constitutional as applied to Goins.

In 2016, Petitioner, Quincy D. Scott, was convicted by a McMinn County jury of aggravated robbery, for which he received a sentence of seventeen years’ incarceration as a Range II, multiple offender at eighty-five percent to be served consecutively to sentences for convictions in other counties. His conviction was affirmed on direct appeal, and the Tennessee Supreme Court denied review. Petitioner then sought post-conviction relief, alleging the ineffective assistance of trial and appellate counsel. Following a bifurcated hearing only on Petitioner’s appellate counsel claim, the post-conviction court granted a delayed appeal, finding that Petitioner had received the ineffective assistance of appellate counsel. A panel of this Court reversed and remanded, concluding that the post-conviction court had failed to make sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law. On remand, the post-conviction court again heard Petitioner’s claims of ineffective assistance of appellate counsel as well as his trial counsel claims. The post-conviction court denied relief, and this appeal followed. On appeal, Petitioner asserts that trial counsel ineffectively cross- examined the State’s witnesses, that trial counsel failed to file motions to suppress several pieces of evidence, that trial counsel failed to appeal the general sessions court’s bind over of his charges to the grand jury, that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction, that newly discovered evidence proves his actual innocence, and that appellate counsel failed to file a reply brief on appeal.1 After a thorough review, we affirm the judgment of the post-conviction court.

In this consolidated appeal, the Defendants, Sanquez Keshawn Jones and Deion Jamaar Glover, appeal their convictions for aggravated kidnapping, aggravated robbery, attempted carjacking, and employing a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony. For these convictions, both Defendants received an effective sentence of twenty-four years’ incarceration. Relative to Defendant Jones’s appeal, he contends the trial court violated Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b)’s general prohibition on propensity evidence by admitting a photograph depicting him possessing a firearm as a juvenile because such behavior is a criminal act. As to Defendant Glover, he first argues the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions because the State’s proof failed to establish his identity as one of the perpetrators of these offenses. He further alleges the trial court erred by admitting a photograph showing him possessing a firearm, arguing this photograph was irrelevant under Tennessee Rule of Evidence 402, unfairly prejudicial under Tennessee Rule of Evidence 403, and propensity evidence violative of Tennessee Rule of Evidence 404(b). Next, Defendant Glover contends he is entitled to plain error relief because his right to confrontation was violated when his cell phone data was extracted by a non- testifying Federal Bureau of Investigation agent and admitted against him at trial. Finally, he challenges the trial court’s imposition of consecutive sentencing based upon the dangerous offender classification of Tennessee Code Annotated section 40-35-115(b). After review, we affirm the judgments of the trial court in all respects.

A Knox County jury convicted the Defendant, Sidarius Jackson, of multiple drug, gang, and gun related felonies, including murder. Before trial, the Defendant filed a motion to sever his offenses into four separate trials, and the trial granted in part and denied in part the motion. On appeal, the Defendant contends that: (1) the trial court erred when it denied his motion to suppress evidence found as the result of a warrantless search; (2) the trial court erred when it denied his motion to sever the offenses, (3) the State’s gang- enhancement presentment was insufficient; (4) the criminal gang statute was not properly applied to his conspiracy and unlawful possession of a firearm conviction; (5) the trial court improperly considered acts he committed while a juvenile during sentencing; and (6) the evidence presented is insufficient to sustain his conviction for conspiracy to possess with intent to sell a controlled substance. After review, we affirm the trial court’s judgments.

This is an appeal concerning the application of the Tennessee Governmental Tort Liability Act, specifically to Tennessee Code Annotated sections 29-20-203, 29-20-204, and 29-20- 205 of the Act. At issue is the trial court’s entry of summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s claims against a county government for damages sustained from an automobile accident allegedly caused by the washout of a road maintained by the county. For the reasons stated herein, we affirm the trial court’s summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff’s action.